Alrighty then. Please show me in Otto’s post where he said rude things about anyone.
Why not, praytell? A mere 14 posts after the rule is posted, he is banned for violating it. What else do you need?
Doesn’t mean I don’t have respect for you, just that Frank has given me wise advice before. I would like to think I speak the language of the hard, as it is how I live my life. This very afternoon I had to call an ignorant fuck to the mat. Best for both of us he decided to play dead, otherwise we might have both lost blood.
Him lots more than me, I assure you, as he choked like a little chicken. Fucking Bitch.
Is this language you can understand?
Oh - that question. I do think that a leader with ‘vision’ (a goal, an aim) would have an answer. There are all sorts of message boards out there. If you’re in control, you should know where you’re going.
This ban was completely out of line. I’ll be checking to see how this will unfold and if ** Otto ** is reinstated.
Meanwhile, I need extended vacations away from the Dope. It seems like it’s the right moment for that.
It’s a fucking message board. What do you think it’s going to turn into? A unicorn?
A unicorn would be nice. I like unicorns.
Exactly. There wasn’t any rule that states Don’t ask snarky questions. That’s not whining, nor is it making rude remarks about mods. Ed might choose to interpret it that way, but it’s not fair to expect Otto to know it would be interpreted that way. Certainly most of us seem to have been surprised by that interpretation.
If Ed had said “For future refernece, Otto, asking snarky questions with implied criticism of administrative policies will be treated as whining” and then banned Otto for a repeat performance, that would be fair. Still an ill-advised rule(*) to have, IMO, but at least a fair application of said rule.
(*) Again, I’m talking about the rule as applied. The rule as stated seems totally reasonable, and indeed not much different than the previous rule. But having admins policing a poster’s tone or implications is just begging for inconsistent, capricious moderating and a lack of understanding by the members of what is or isn’t allowed.
You’re out of luck. They only approach virgins.
That’s exactly the point. He didn’t actually break the rule that Ed had set up in that thread.
Fuck this whole Ed business, i’ve got a serious question to ask;
Is that a single unicorn for the entire board, or one each?
There is always that. Well, maybe just a regular pony then. Ohh, a pegasus. I don’t think they have a problem with…umm, erm, non-virgins such as myself.
Well, that’s a bit of a point, isn’t it.
If you go to a club that has a set of rules:
- Don’t piss in the punch
- Don’t start fist fights
- Don’t look funny at the bartender
and you break #s 1 and 2 again and again it should come as no shocker when you get bounced for breaking #3 despite it’s rather nebulous definition.
Otto acted like a jerk all over the damn place, again and again and again. He had multiple warnings. So Ed, who’s obviously stressed to the max, sick of all the obnoxious shit in is book forum, and tired of all the people bitching at poor Jerry who’s trying to improve the functioning of the board, tells people to cut it the hell out and Otto decides to act like a prick about it.
You know what - I bet if I had asked the question I wouldn’t be banned because I don’t have a reputation for being a whiney bitch. Otto does.
Again, rule or no rule, don’t act like a shithead to the owner of the site when he’s having a bad day. That seems quite simple to me.
There’s been a mutant deer with a single, central horn. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/11/unicorn-deer-italy.html. So unicorns do exist. See? So the Straight Dope can turn into a unicorn. OK?
That’s snarky, you know.
I’m gonna choose to believe you mean me. Well. nice to make a new friend in a trainwreck. 
Banning Otto sucks.
Vote for Quimby!
I prefer to think of it more as frabjous.
That’s just fucking idiotic. Everybody knows what Ed meant. I chafe under the rules sometimes just as much as anyone else does, but if I’m going to go rules-lawyering every slight little fucking mirandized issue, it’s going to be over some brilliant, scintillating, subtle, spectacular piece of snark. Not “Oh, you said no touching, but I didn’t really touch, I just jabbed my finger in your nose and then pulled it back really quickly!” Dumbfuck. If Otto was your co-worker, you’d have wiped boogers in his coffee cup by now. Somehow by being a petty smart-ass on a message board he’s suddenly become Mumia Abu-Jamal. Jesus, this is stupid.
If he was never kicked out for violating #1 and #2, then obviously “again and again” is an insufficient number of violations, and should have no bearing whether he violated a rule that requires no previous warnings.
Fine. Then that’s what he should have been banned for. Not for violating a rule that requires no warnings.
Which, if true, makes the very first application of the newest rule even more capricious and uncalled for.
If you call that “acting like a shithead” then your skin must be as thin as Ed’s. Watch out you don’t explode the next time you try to stifle a fart.
That is the crux of the issue for me. The guy couldn’t manage to refrain from posting a bitchy question about the staff in a thread titled WARNING - stop whining and contained, in the OP, the statement “Although we welcome constructive comments, anyone making rude remarks about the staff from here on out will be banned without further notice”.
And that’s what happened, he was banned. I have no problem with that at all. Really, Otto couldn’t resist the urge to post that snarky reply? He’s pissed and moaned with the best of them, and that post was classic Otto whining.
If the thread title was Kittens and Unicorns for EVERYONE!, you would have a good point, but cripes, it was spelled out for all and sundry.
I’m trying to be sympathetic, but it’s not really coming.
It seems to me that if you are going to post what is truly just an innocent question in a thread started by an admin that has the word WARNING in capital letters and says you’ll be banned if you’re rude, you would phrase it in such a way that it could not be construed as sarcastic or rude or snarky or anything other than sincerely just a question.
Especially if you are already on the admins’ radars from having been issued warnings in the past. Regardless of the role of snark on these boards or Cecil’s books.
Given the topic and tone of Ed’s thread and recent events, I think Otto poorly chose the time and tone to ask his question. I’m surprised the banhammer fell as quickly as it did, but not surprised that it fell.